Sentences with phrase «prediction than the future»

Don't stock market predictions tell you more about the person making the prediction than the future?

Not exact matches

Science - fictional adventures in an imaginary future, among extraterrestrial intelligences or future versions of humanity, are — obviously — not accurate predictions of our future, but have more truth in them than to suppose our current social and biological order is unchanging.

We're not taking their truth more seriously if we take them as literal predictions about the future, any more than Data is interpreting more accurately when he misses the joke.

People are stubborn in their BELIEF even if its proven to be wrong... this is true of ghosts and aliens and miracles and prediciting the future... the bible is no better than any other future predictions... zero evidence... NONE.

Asserting that we do not yet have either the facts or the methods to make forecasting a precise art, Michael argues that there are three basic reasons for continuing to make or act upon them: (1) some forecasts are likely to be close to the mark, (2) poor forecasts provide a better basis for planning than no prediction at all, and (3) well - done forecasts help to illuminate the many factors that interact to produce the future.

analyses and predictions — stated that increasingly the problems of the future will require solutions more «theological than technological.»

It indicates that he is far more skeptical of scientists» capacities to make accurate predictions beyond the relatively immediate future than is Hume, who had a strong faith in induction beyond the immediate environment but could not rationally justify it.

I will make a prediction that this article will do more for responsible decisions on acid rain than anything done past, present or future.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

That means the future of agriculture as the climate changes could be even worse than this prediction — and that's before taking into account other factors such as the effect of pests.

Researchers say these results have implications for understanding disease origin rather than for clinical risk prediction and future studies should focus on the mechanisms underlying the relationship between childhood height and later stroke.

That is allowing weather forecasters to push their predictions further into the future than ever before, while climate scientists are exploring how the MJO will behave in a warmer world.

They also predicted the hazard just 1 year into the future, rather than offering the usual 50 - year prediction.

Predicted extinction times more than 100 years in the future are considered too uncertain and thus aren't considered as valid predictions of extinction, Koop says.

«If those predictions were to materialize, then we'd be better off planning for future different vegetation — rather than trying to work with what's here now.»

Truth is, if you can suffer through Roos's device of insouciant half - screen captions that periodically comment on the action, critique his characters, broadly clarify his themes, and make predictions about their futures (a lot like the video for Van Halen's «Right Now») without punching the person in front of you, you're made of sterner stuff than I. They've honestly handed out Purple Hearts for less.

Population growth has been slower than expected, leading to a shortfall against the Norfolk County Council predictions for future pupil numbers.

PREDICTION: More female than male authors are going to be on best - seller and top circulating lists of both print and ebooks in future months and years.

To the extent that dystopian novels depict anxieties about the present rather than predictions for the future, it seems clear that contemporary writers are just as concerned about women's rights as Atwood was in 1985.

Notice above that the daily variation of the spot price and futures prices as the markets prediction changes are both much larger than the barely noticeable drift (from contango) between the spot and futures price.

While our Fund Manager of the Year awards are recognition of past contributions rather than predictions of future results, we're confident in each one's long - term prospects because of their deep research resources and willingness to stick with their discipline in good times and bad.

What makes this transformation in capital even more meaningful is that it is based on what actually happened in FY 2017 rather than predictions about what might happen in the future.

Value investors * price * assets based on their value * now * (based on data from the present) rather than make predictions about markets in the * future.

The future is fairly certain to be different than the past, and unlikely to fit perfectly with any one person's or company's prediction of what is to come to pass.

Fund managers make different predictions about future market performance, and the differences ultimately generate a distribution curve of returns as some funds do better than others.

I recall reading Buffet predicted that future returns for probably a decade could be lower than the past, but that his and all predictions are pretty worthless.

Though we like to think we can predict the future and that hindsight is for the birds, we think we can make some pretty safe predictions about some upcoming games that are going to leave more disappointed than satisfied.

But look: The predictions for the future would be more dire than before especially as the aerosol cooling would not be expected to keep up.

Frightening thought — if and only if the AGW centric prediction of future climate is either not completely correct, or out right wrong, consider extreme scenarios which would result in a drastically (and painfully) different outcome than the prophecied sea level rise / climatic tropical expansion / northerly movement of species model.

There are others (at least William Connolley, Brian Schmidt) who are more than willing to take you on if you disagree with the IPCC prediction of 0.1 - 0.2 C per decade for the near future.

The work of Schmittner et al. demonstrates that climates of the past can provide potentially powerful information to reduce uncertainty in future climate predictions and evaluate the likelihood of climate change that is larger than captured in present models.

The report also disappoints in a more fundamental way: it fails to understand the issue of future ocean circulation changes as an issue of risk assessment, rather than one of climate prediction.

All in all the science of hurricanes does appear to be much more fun and interesting than the average climate change issue, as there is a debate, a «fight» between different hypothesis, predictions compared to near - future observations, and all that does not always get pre-eminence in the exchanges about models.

And yes, those models are uncertain, with error bars greater than zero: as with any prediction of future events, you inherently can never be certain you're right until those events have already occurred.

They maintain that the actual forcings (which includes things other than just CO2) are closest to Hansen's scenario B. Remember this wasn't an exercise in predicting future CO2, methane, solar, volcanic, etc. forcings, but a prediction of what could happen under some hypothetical «high», «medium» and «low» forcing scenarios.

Predictions for a long time period can be more reliable than predictions for the immediate future because the longer the forecast horizon, the greater the opportunity for the predictioPredictions for a long time period can be more reliable than predictions for the immediate future because the longer the forecast horizon, the greater the opportunity for the predictiopredictions for the immediate future because the longer the forecast horizon, the greater the opportunity for the prediction to occur.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions.

Simulations of future climate are all based upon assumptions about future greenhouse gas concentrations and other factors that influence climate; this is one reason why these simulations are referred to as «projections» rather than «predictions.»

Why are the words of GM valued as a more accurate prediction of the future than the words of ExxonMobil and BP?

For the near future the uncertainty in climate prediction justifies choosing polices that guide us towards net negative emissions as quickly as possible and the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases at levels significantly lower than today.

We've heard bold predictions about the future of electric vehicles before, like when Thomas Edison made a prediction in 1914 that still hasn't panned out more than a century later:

In deference to the unpredictable nature of attempting to forecast global climate (and as an attempt to avoid mistakes previously made) the panel was more cautious than it was in past reports in making predictions for the future.

Could models, which consistently err by several degrees in the 20th century, be trusted for their future predictions of decadal trends that are much lower than this error?

Totalitarian propaganda raised ideological scientificality and its technique of making statements in the form of predictions to a height of efficiency of method and absurdity of content because, demagogically speaking, there is hardly a better way to avoid disussion than by releasing an argument from the control of the present and by saying that only the future can reveal its merits.

As the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing, climate activists have ramped up predictions of future climate change impacts, declaring that it is «worse than we thought.»

Rather than focusing just on methane leakage, the authors of the ERL paper surveyed 23 experts to get their predictions about future natural gas supply and then fed those assumptions into a model of the energy system.

Future coupling of demography with existing global land model predictions could enable assessment of these potentially important die - off responses [44], as well as implementation of more realistic reductions in tree loss to drive scenarios (i.e., enabling assessments of ecological changes less drastic or occurring on shorter time - scales than conversion from forest to grassland biomes).

Only slightly off - subject: the Guardian's environment editor John Vidal has just published dire predictions of future temperatures worse than Monbiot's worst wet dreams, issuing from an MIT Global Change (that's what they call themselves) thinktank, which is financed by ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Electricité de France, among others.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.